From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Hsu Subject: Re: ASoC: nau8825: cross talk suppression measurement function Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:09:34 +0800 Message-ID: <576A016E.5070607@nuvoton.com> References: <20160615123352.GA7136@mwanda> <57674C20.3080707@nuvoton.com> <20160620100012.GK32247@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from maillog.nuvoton.com (maillog.nuvoton.com [202.39.227.15]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0E42651A8 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:09:39 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20160620100012.GK32247@mwanda> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Dan Carpenter Cc: AC30 YHChuang , AP MS30 Linux ALSA , "broonie@kernel.org" , AC30 CTLin0 , "lgirdwood@gmail.com" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi, On 6/20/2016 6:00 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:51:28AM +0800, John Hsu wrote: > >> Is it better to separate this function to two case, one locked with >> timeout and the other not? Do you have any suggestion about it? >> Thank you. >> > > It should return the error code and the callers should handle it. We > always have to know if we have the lock or not. > > regards, > dan carpenter > > . > > I see and we'll modify it. Thanks for your suggestion. BR. John